How do the Republicans get the majority back?

And who should be the Majority Leader if they do?

Bush carried most of those "D" states. He and the VP will need to campaign hard in those places.

It ain't gonna be easy, but the GOP has a fair chance of picking up seats in MT, SD, MO, and possibly even GA (although I doubt it). The GOP is soft in OR, NC, and NH (sorry Bob -- even if you win your primary, you're helping the socialist scum).

We may get a 1-2 vote majority, depending on the breaks. The opposite side of that coin is a 2 vote pickup by the Dems. Nobody gets a filibuster-proof majority.

NC - Not Dole Kills any Democrat

I think you are missing the mark...GOP has a better chance in MN, NJ, and LA than it does in MT. I think the GOP will win back a majority, it will probably be Fifty three or fifty two....but hey a majority is still a majority.....

One story of the last twenty years that has not gone reported is the great acumen of the Democrats in holding onto and picking up Senate seats (except of course in 94).....the GOP should study the Dems in this.

Yeah, but it's gonna be Dole, so deal with it.

Well, I call 'em like I see 'em. Wellstone, populist/socialist pinhead that he is, is still very well funded. Landrieu in LA may be vulnerable -- it depends on faces her. As for "The Torch" in NJ, I've lost all faith in that state to do the right thing at any time. But I would love to be proven wrong on that one.

"it depends on faces her" = "it depends on who faces her"

Of course we at Free Republic can work to counter well funded Democrats . . . Early Money will make a huge difference to the GOP candidates in key races.

The Republicans will be lucky to maintain staying where they are. However, if the "stay at home" evangelicals get off their lazy asses and counter the knock and drag ignoramus vote for the other party, there is excellent potential to pick up seats in Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, Missouri, Louisina and Georgia with even long shots at West Virginia, Illinois, Delaware and New Jersey. Meanwhile, New Hampshire and Oregon will be the biggest challenges to hold, with strong challenges in Arkansas.

Best case I see is net 3 pick up, worst case is net 3 loss. Again, because the "stay at home" evangelicals are so unreliable while the ignoramus vote will turn out 110%.

Again, because the "stay at home" evangelicals are so unreliable while the ignoramus vote will turn out 110%.

Agreed. It is incredible to see this bloc throw away their blessing. The rationale I hear is sickening. "He/She hasn't banned abortion completely, so I'm not voting". Oh, so who gets in instead. "Doesn't matter. I hope he/she (the conservative) rots in Hell".

Evangelical voters, as a bloc, are naive and short-sighted. And maddeningly stubborn.

No I think West Virginia and Deleware are clearly out of play........

But I do think there are opportunities for Republicans to pick up as many as five or six, although more likely three or four seats.....

I think 2004 will be an even bigger year for Republicans, because you have tons of vulnerable Dems who won seats in the impending impeachment backlash etc........

Why do Republicans typically do so horribly in Senate races? Why why why why why?????? Obviously the media being so biased does not help, but I also think that Republicans are not as good campaigners as Democrats typically.....

I wonder how hard Bush will campaign to get the Senate back?

I actually don't feel sorry for him when his nominees are bottled up in the Senate because every time that happens it should remind him to spend a little more of that political capital to elect Republicans.......Remember a 90 percent approval rating does nothing if your team is not winning elections.

I am from Louisiana. Landrieu will probably win her seat, unless LA. can come up with a good candidate. So far, we have NONE. Cooksey will run and a new person named Blossman said that he will make a run for it. He has no congressional experience. I don't know much about him yet. There was a small write up in the local paper last week, that said that Blossman was sick and tired of Landrieu, who never answers her constituents. I can surely attest to that. Just this week, I e-mailed her. She replied with her standard message that due to her heavy workload, that she could only respond to her constituents and offered me her web address. I quickly sent a signal to that web site. Guess what, the computer sent back a quicker response, that the site was an error. This has happend numerous times and many call in on the state wide conservative radio show about it. Blossman had similiar experiences. Cooksey will be a weak candidate in the south part of the state. He will probably carry the north-east and central part, which is where I live. He has been nationally critized about his comment about anyone wearing turbans, should be picked up and investigated. The local liberal paper took a poll and 70% if the people agreed with him. The dems have already run ads to counter his remarks. He has run his own to counter back. Interestingly, Cooksey is from the same town, Monroe, that Landrieu's husband is from. Cooksey traveled with MCCain during his attempt to gain support for CFR and was very easy on "his friend Mary Landrieu". I personally don't think he wants to make a serious run, maybe assuring Landrieu stays in. I wish tis was not so, but it appears that way to me. Now that Roscoe is out for the race in Montana, Baucus probably will stay in. Cleland is the only one in Georgia who would be vulnerable. I don't how he shapes up in that liberal state.